CM Display vs. i1Display Pro

[alexdi]

This topic doesn't seem to have appeared recently, I hope you'll forgive a rehash.

I have this setup:

Windows 7 x64
Adobe CS5
Sony 32" 1080p HDTV (sRGB gamut, CCFL)
Dell 2408WFP (AdobeRGB gamut, CCFL)

The Sony is my main screen. Fonts are large and the gamut range is closer to what most people will see from my pictures, which are all posted online. I do color correction on the Dell. However, the i1 Display 2 I had in the past never seemed to properly profile the Dell screen. I also wasn't able to successfully set up a profile for each screen with the EyeOne Match software, so the Sony is definitely not accurate.

I'd like to upgrade to a unit that's designed for wide gamut displays and has greater unit-to-unit consistency. Based on Ethan's reports at Dry Creek, the two above seem the best for this purpose.

Some questions:

1) Is there any physical difference between the CM Display and i1 Display Pro? Is the '5X slower' measuring cycle a limitation of the EyeOne software or inherent to the hardware? Will both devices perform at the same speed with third-party CMS software?

2) I had planned to use ArgyllCMS and Displaycal in place of the standard software. Is there any reason to prefer the standard software or some other CMS, outside of usability? Do the two calibrators have different compatibility with third-party software?

The i1 is about 50% more expensive than the CM with existing rebates. The crux of these questions is whether the i1 is worth the difference if I'm not limiting myself to the included software.

Thanks for your time.

[alexdi]

No thoughts on this?

[Simon Garrett]

I don't know if there's a physical difference.  I have the ColorMunki Display - it's the third colorimiter I've bought over the years (predecessor was an I1 Display2) and I'm very pleasesd with the CM.  I can't comment on its speed compared to the I1 Display Pro, but I can say it's similar in speed to the I1 Display2.  I've also used it with Argyll s/w without problem.  I have also used the HCFR software to measure the performance - again, it works fine on the CM. 

[alexdi]

Thank you. Do you ever find reason to use the stock software?

[digitaldog]

1) Is there any physical difference between the CM Display and i1 Display Pro? Is the '5X slower' measuring cycle a limitation of the EyeOne software or inherent to the hardware? Will both devices perform at the same speed with third-party CMS software?

It's a limitation based on the software driving it, at least when you look at the differences between the same hardware with respect to ColorMunki Display and i1Display-Pro or whatever these products are now called. Does it matter that it takes say a few minutes longer? The old Artisan took 12 minutes if memory serves me.

The bigger differences is the lame software the Munki provides. You're getting the same quality colorimeter. You're getting slower measuring times which isn't a big deal really. The big deal is you are stuck with settings that may not provide a visual match to say a print. So you're paying less for the same quality hardware only to get crippled software and worse, I don't think you can upgrade just the software.

[alexdi]

If I buy the CM, I've no intention of installing the stock software. That's why I'm curious if there would be any reason to. As to speed, some third-party software choices can be configured to use very large color sets, multiple scans, and extended scanning periods. The speed difference, if indeed a hardware feature, could be relevant.  

[digitaldog]

If I buy the CM, I've no intention of installing the stock software.

Better be sure that other software products will drive it!

[alexdi]

That's a question in my original post.

[Simon Garrett]

Argyll s/w works fine with the CM Display - it's what I normally use.